Student

ENC3310
Dr.McGee
July 22nd 2016

Argument Synthesis
Animal Testing: The Unnecessary Evil

The many stigmas that surround the alternatives to animal testing on products are what hold
those methods back from becoming popularized and widely used in the beauty industry. The
advocates for animal testing and companies argue extensively that the methods used in testing
animals provide a safer product for public use than the alternatives provide. This stigma has
transferred into the publics opinion and drives the main force behind how and why the
alternative methods to animal testing havent become popularized and used overall across the
globe.
This belief stems from the initial use of animals in research where the purpose originated with
the intent of using animals to better understand the human body. This began as far back as the
17th century with uses being centered in the explanation of circulation and other bodily functions,
such as to prove the worth of a cure to a disease or the toxicity of a substance. These tests held
high importance and greatly assisted in the development of many medical advancements and
hygienic practices. As science continued to develop, it was able to be determined that animals
such as mice and rats had similar reactions to irritants of the skin, eyes, and ears as humans did.
The connection that was made of using animals to test human function and reaction allowed for
the common practice of using animals for testing products. Unfortunately, this has also led to
more frivolous testing for the sake of testing over explicit scientific research and allowing
animals used to test products such in ways that could be deemed as unnecessary.
As the public has grown accustomed to their federal government allowing and approving of the
use of animals overall to test safety of any and all product for human use and consumption, it
became regular and expected, and the testing became furthermore extraneous as well as
exploitative. In many cases, the animal testing is completely unnecessary, as it is with many of
the tests performed by the beauty and cosmetic industry. An example of the suffering that

animals endure to provide cosmetic products to the general public is Acute Toxicity Testing. On
the surface, the title provides a comforting appeal. It is not unreasonable to test for toxicity, even
acutely in products for human consumption. But, in order to determine how dangerous a single,
short-term exposure to a product or chemical would be to a human, the substance is dealt out to
animals, typically rodents, in incredibly high dosages, usually through force-feeding, eye or skin
contact, as well as forced inhalation. Animals that experience the highest doses typically endure
symptoms ranging from severe abdominal pain, diarrhea, convulsions, seizures, paralysis,
bleeding from the nose, mouth, or genitals, to death. But, globally, this is how companies were
able to provide the public with the comfort that their products are not only safe, but proven safe
for decades.
The point of view that society maintains regarding animal testing is that no matter the cost, it is a
necessary evil to provide safety for humanities sake. This is built deep into the roots of many
societies, with the use of animals in research ranging from scientific purposes to merely taking
advantage of animals extraneously being legal in 80 percent of countries. Eighty percent of
countries have deemed the violation and suffering of animals to be an acceptable practice.
This ideology is so heavily rooted into some societies, that it is actually a legal requirement for
all products that are for human consumption to be tested on animals, as it is in China. In China, it
is required with any production of cosmetic product to provide samples of new products to the
government to be animal-tested. The Humane Society International (HIS) is one of the only
international animal protection groups that is in works to provide protection to all animals,
including those in laboratories, farms, wildlife, and even companion animals. The HSI draws
major attention to this, stating that in this way, China is inflicting suffering and death on
thousands of animals each year due to the cultural belief that animal testing is the most accurate

and safe way to determine how humans will react to cosmetic and beauty products. The HSI is a
forerunner in advocating animal rights, doing its part in placing seeds of thought into the public
about this cause in China, as well as across the globe.
The facts are, though, that the alternative methods to animal testing are even more reliable than
the crude methods that torture animals. In regards to the previously discussed practice of Acute
Toxicity testing, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has found that these tests
predicted toxicity in humans with only 65 percent accuracy. Another group, Cruelty Free
International (CFI), the self-proclaimed leading organization that is working to create a society
where no one wants or believes that there is a need to use animals in experimentation, as well as
being a driving force in discussing the realities of the ineffectiveness of animal testing, as well as
the benefits and positive outcome that the alternatives to animal testing provide. They claim that
95 percent of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests whether on
safety grounds or because they do not work The CFI even discusses that animal testing is
unreliable, finding that Only one third of substances known to cause cancer in humans have
been shown to cause cancer in animals. This is an unsettling point, and an important one. The
public so deeply relies upon animal testing as a way to know what is safe and unsafe for them to
be in use of. When faced with a reality such as this, that only one third of substances that cause
cancer in humans were shown to have caused cancer when tested on animals, the public must
begin to ask questions. It is impressive how truly unreliable the methods using animals for
testing for safety and effectivity of cosmetic and beauty products can be.
In comparison to this, the alternatives to animal testing have been proven to have a much more
successful rate in determining how humans will react to products. This can be seen when we
return to the discussion of the Acute Toxicity testing. PETA contributes that Replacements and

refinements for acute toxicity tests on animals are being developed. The 3T3 neutral red uptake
cytotoxicity test can be used to determine if a chemical can be labeled nontoxic. There is a
community of companies that are considered PETA Approved, and these companies must
adhere to and follow the strict guidelines that PETA presents in order to be considered free of the
cruel animal testing. One PETA Approved company, LUSH Cosmetics, has been providing the
world with cruelty-free beauty and personal care products from its beginnings that are
approved internationally through all standards and regulations, as well as being incredibly
popular. Similarly, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), which is a Bostonbased national animal advocacy organization that remains dedicated to ending the use of animals
in research and science, as well as education, finds that EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from
cultured human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants
than traditional animal tests. In comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected all of the test
chemicals that irritate human skin, while tests on rabbits misclassified 10 out of 25 test
chemicalsa full 40% error rate. Companies that use EpiDerm to determine the safelty of their
product tend to see an increase in accuracy as well as a decrease in complaint from consumers
and distributers as is claimed by manufacturers of the in vitro alternative to animal testing such
as Mattek. This displays a comparable situation in which the alternative to animal testing showed
an increasingly reliable result, and the method that is widely used and believed to be the more
accurate choice could barely scrape by with only a 60% accuracy rate.
In this way, we come to a common core thought from these groups as well as a growing portion
of the public society in global concerns. This being, if we know these facts, then why? Why is
this a continued practice, sometimes enforced by law and believed by so much of the world? The
answer is stigma. The stigmas associated with cruelty-free alternatives are detrimental to the

realities of the outcomes they can provide. There is so much good and even more benefit than
imaginable that can come from research that doesnt rely on the result obtained from the
skinning of a rabbit, or the application of a new mascara to a Guinea Pigs eyes to see if theyll
go blind. The exploitation of animals is not only extremely unnecessary, it is doing harm to
humanity as the results it provides are exceedingly and regularly unreliable. It is up to those who
with knowledge that desire to educate and those that desire to be educated to help spread this
knowledge around the world and break the stigmas that hinder our society and keep us locked
into a primordial state of being. My personal view is now something that comes into play.
Through my research I have a gained a different stand point, a new moral obligation I have
discovered. The world is full of individuals who seek to take the easy way out. This in turn leads
to situations where animals taken advantage of. There are so many over worked animals who are
needlessly tortured to test products, and so much more. It has become a duty to myself to apply
this knowledge to my future career, to my professional standpoints and to my morality. I will
stand against animal testing, and the exploitation of living things. I am seeking a career in
hospitality and can apply this knowledge to my path as I am able to influence ethically sourced
hotel and tourism products and venues, and share my knowledge with the companies I connect
with.
There are endless options to deter the senseless pain and suffering of so many animals. Stigmas
should not be the driving force behind a cruel and useless form of scientific research. With effort
combined, we can break away from these stigmas and come into a new era of cruelty-free living.

Sources:
1. Creating acruelty-free world. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2016, from
http://www.hsi.org/issues/becrueltyfree/facts/infographic/en/?referrer=https://www.google.com/
2. Animals Used in Testing | National Anti-Vivisection Society. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2016,
from http://www.navs.org/what-we-do/keep-you-informed/science-corner/areas-of-science-thatuse-animals/animals-in-testing/
3. History of Animal Research. (n.d.). Retrieved May July 03, 2016, from
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/resources/animal-research-essayresources/history-of-animal-research/
4. 5 Unnecessary Animal Experiments Still Happening Now. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2016,
from http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-unnecessary-animal-experiments-stillhappening-now/

5. Knight, A. (n.d.). The costs and benefits of animal experiments. Retrieved July 03, 2016, from
https://newint.org/blog/2011/07/07/animal-testing-costs-benefits/
6. National Research Council (US) Committee to Update Science, M., & A. (n.d.). Retrieved
July 03, 2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24645/
7. Legislation - Asia. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2016, from
http://www.frame.org.uk/legislation/legislation-asia/
8. In Testing | Alternatives to Animal Testing and Research. (n.d.). Retrieved July 03, 2016, from
http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing
9. U. (n.d.). Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic. Retrieved July 22, 2016, from
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentationfactsheets/product-testing-toxic-tragic/
10. EpiDerm - Overview - MatTek Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved July 22, 2016, from
https://www.mattek.com/products/epiderm/